Increasing Charitable Giving by Mobile Phone: A Fund-raising Field Experiment
Last registered on May 18, 2018

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
Increasing Charitable Giving by Mobile Phone: A Fund-raising Field Experiment
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0001759
Initial registration date
November 05, 2016
Last updated
May 18, 2018 7:24 AM EDT
Location(s)
Region
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
University of Groningen
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
University of Copenhagen
Additional Trial Information
Status
Completed
Start date
2016-11-06
End date
2018-05-18
Secondary IDs
Abstract
Innovations in consumer payment instruments urge charities to adapt the way they raise funds. In door-to-door fund raising, the shift in preference from giving cash to making donations by mobile phone changes the nature of the interaction between solicitor and donor. This study deals with the challenge posed to charities on how to ensure that mobile phone users participate in the fund raising drive. We investigate this in collaboration with a Danish charity. Our 3x2 design targets respondents who have indicated a preference to give by mobile phone. The treatments differ in two dimensions: a. whether respondents are asked to state the amount they intend to give and the intensity of this pledge. b. the presence or absence of a deadline to complete the transfer.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Fosgaard, Toke and Adriaan Soetevent. 2018. "Increasing Charitable Giving by Mobile Phone: A Fund-raising Field Experiment." AEA RCT Registry. May 18. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/1759/history/29679
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
In the annual door-to-door fund-raising drive of a large charitable organization, solicited households who indicate that they wish to donate by mobile phone at a later date are randomly assigned to one of six treatments. The treatments differ in two dimensions: a. whether respondents are asked to state the amount they intend to give and the intensity of this pledge. b. the presence or absence of a deadline to complete the transfer.
Intervention Start Date
2016-11-06
Intervention End Date
2016-11-07
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
a. Donations by respondents who have indicated to donate at a later point using their mobile phone;
b. Pledged amounts by respondents who have indicated to donate at a later point using their mobile phone.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
Participating solicitors will be randomly assigned to six groups:
I. NPinf: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date do not have to make a pledge. These respondents do not face a deadline to complete the transfer;
II. NP7: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date do not have to make a pledge. These respondents face a seven-day deadline to complete the transfer;
III. SPinf: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to make a soft pledge concerning the intended amount. These respondents do not face a deadline to complete the transfer;
IV. SP7: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to make a soft pledge concerning the intended amount. These respondents do face a deadline to complete the transfer;
V. FPinf: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to make a firm pledge concerning the intended amount. These respondents face no deadline to complete the transfer;
VI. FP7: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to make a firm pledge concerning the intended amount. Respondents face a deadline to complete the transfer.

Experimental Design Details
Participating solicitors will be randomly assigned to six groups: I. NPinf: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date do not have to state the intended amount. These respondents do not face a deadline to complete the transfer; II. NP7: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date do not have to state the intended amount. These respondents face a seven-day deadline to complete the transfer; III. SPinf: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to state the intended amount. These respondents do not face a deadline to complete the transfer; IV. SP7: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to state the intended amount. These respondents do face a seven-day deadline to complete the transfer; V. FPinf: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to state the intended amount. The solicitor writes this amount on a flyer, adds his/her signature and gives the flyer to the respondent. These respondents face no deadline to complete the transfer; VI. FP7: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to state the intended amount. The solicitor writes this amount on a flyer, adds his/her signature and gives the flyer to the respondent. These respondents face a seven-day deadline to complete the transfer.
Randomization Method
One of the PIs took 6 instruction packages (one of each treatment) and randomly put them in one of six bags that also contained the other materials solicitors needed. These six bags were randomly ordered in a bunch that was tied together with a piece of rope. At the intervention date, the helpers picked one of these bunches and assigned a bag to a solicitor arriving (taking out the instructions and reading them out aloud to the solicitor). Each time the helper had finished a bunch, he or she fetched a new bunch of six bags.
Randomization Unit
Level of randomization is the solicitor level
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
300 solicitors
Sample size: planned number of observations
Planned number of total observations in terms of households approached: 30,000 (100 per solicitor)
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
50 solicitors in NP7: no pledge, 7 day deadline;
50 solicitors in NPinf: no pledge, no deadline;
50 solicitors in SP7: soft pledge, 7 day deadline;
50 solicitors in SPinf: soft pledge, no deadline;
50 solicitors in FP7: firm pledge, 7 day deadline;
50 solicitors in FPinf: firm pledge, no deadline;
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
IRB of the Faculty of Economics and Business of the University of Groningen
IRB Approval Date
2016-11-04
IRB Approval Number
RUG_FEB2016AS01
Analysis Plan
Analysis Plan Documents
Pre-analysis plan: Does pledging increase charitable giving? A door-to-door mobile phone fund-raising field experiment

MD5: 3679ff7a28780df1d696c6621b287d11

SHA1: d80f60b15c37d2383ee91e5c453ee2abf12bbcb5

Uploaded At: November 05, 2016

Statistical analysis on the blinded data

MD5:

SHA1:

Uploaded At: November 01, 2017

Post-Trial
Post Trial Information
Study Withdrawal
Intervention
Is the intervention completed?
Yes
Intervention Completion Date
November 06, 2016, 12:00 AM +00:00
Is data collection complete?
No
Data Publication
Data Publication
Is public data available?
No
Program Files
Program Files
No
Reports and Papers
Preliminary Reports
Relevant Papers